Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 10
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
This works both ways though, and also undercuts the argument that less guns will equal less crime.

That is why I have not tried to use such correlation arguments.
I have acknowledged that I can not "prove" that a handgun ban will result in less crime, and that I am speculating based on my own opinions. I hope the other side can acknowledge the same.


That's fair enough - but I still assert that you have no empirical data backing your contention. While we seem to agree that no direct correlation can be drawn between crime and legal firearms ownership, it has been well established by others that banning legal ownership does not impede criminal access in a meaningful way.

gc wrote:
Quote:
Speaking generally, I'm curious as to how people who admit little knowledge of criminal behaviour, deviant psychology, the justice system, or firearms issues can be so convinced of the infallibility of their gun control theories.

Again, I'm not trying to claim that my arguments are infallible. But on the one hand, I think that there is a good chance that banning handguns will result in less violent crime, and on the other hand is the right for people to possess things which are essentially designed to kill or injure other human beings. In this case, I'd say the former trumps the latter.


Do you agree, in general, that we have a right to own property? That this right shall not be infringed without reasonable cause? I suspect you do. Reasonable cause is the core of this issue - you (and 'your side') have not demonstrated the reasonable part. There have been enough experiments with bans to show that it doesn't (I would say cannot) work.

A questionable chance of marginal benefit that may or may not occur, does not outweigh the certainty of widespread infringement that absolutely would occur. Your personal opinion on the particular class of objects in question is not relevant to the larger issue, and is naught but an appeal to emotion.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All, I repeat, all of the evidence points points to this:

Gun bans do not reduce violent crime or reduce the number of illegal weapons.

There is no opposing evidence (unless the progressives have a UN department doing gun modeling on a computer somewhere)

Therefore, following any semblance of scientific inquiry, a logical person would have to seriously question the theory that handgun bans = safer streets. Especially since all of the data points towards the alternate theory that handgun bans= more victims.

So if progressives truly want to reduce the number of victims then a gun ban should be the last thing to advocate. But, as I long ago realized, progressives do not care about evidence or even the people they pretend to care about. They just stubbornly adhere to their ideology because it "feels" like the right thing to do.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Do you agree, in general, that we have a right to own property? That this right shall not be infringed without reasonable cause? I suspect you do.

Yes.
Quote:
Reasonable cause is the core of this issue - you (and 'your side') have not demonstrated the reasonable part. There have been enough experiments with bans to show that it doesn't (I would say cannot) work.

I don't have "experiments" to back up my opinions, but that doesn't mean that there is a very good chance that banning handguns would reduce violent crime (and accidents) compared to what would happen if we didn't ban them. Common sense would tell me that there will be less handguns, and therefore less crime, if we banned them. So far no one has been able to give me a logical reason why or how banning handguns will result in more crime, except to give some statistics which I don't think are very meaningful.
I think we all want the same thing here. We all want to see less crime, even if we have different ideas about how to achieve it. I don't want to ban handguns just for the sake of taking away peoples' liberty. So if someone can convince me how keeping handguns legal results in less crime, I just might change my mind.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
A questionable chance of marginal benefit that may or may not occur, does not outweigh the certainty of widespread infringement that absolutely would occur.

I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here, but can anyone here actually "prove" that the invasion of Iraq has made us safer? Can anyone "prove" that the world would be less safe if we let other countries develop nuclear weapons? I think there are a lot of questions about public safety vs. infringement, where most people here would choose the former, even without "proof" to back it up.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why are the real life examples not important? I suspect it is because you choose to disregard any evidence that does not support your feelings. You are illogical. It is not that there is not ample evidence, it is just that you choose not to believe it.

Higher crime and more guns is the result of all these gun bans. In states and towns with conceal and carry laws the crime rates are lower. In Kennesaw (Guntown USA) this also hold true.

The reason, simply put, is the risk/reward for the criminal. If he suspects that his "victims" might be armed, he is less likely to risk personal harm. If the state has forbidden his victims from possessing guns then it becomes safer for him to commit crimes. This explains the spike of crimes following gun bans and the immediate drop in crimes as seen in right-to- defend communities like Kennesaw.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
You are illogical.

If the state has forbidden his victims from possessing guns then it becomes safer for him to commit crimes. This explains the spike of crimes following gun bans and the immediate drop in crimes as seen in right-to- defend communities like Kennesaw.

If you're going to call me illogical, at least listen to my arguments. I am not calling for a ban on guns, I am asking for a ban on handguns.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silly me, I assumed that because the entire thread was a discussion about handguns that you would be able to make the tiny mental leap to understand that the guns I was referring to are handguns. You are right, to make that assumption was illogical of me. Next time I will keep the terms simpler for you.

Beyond your silly diversion from the meat of the discussion - does the R-I-S-K / R-E-W-A-R-D theory help you understand the link between higher crimes and handgun bans?
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
If he suspects that his "victims" might be armed, he is less likely to risk personal harm. If the state has forbidden his victims from possessing guns then it becomes safer for him to commit crimes.

Are you saying that long guns won't provide the same deterrent?
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeepers GC,

I was thinking that one would need to use two hands and a wee more space in order to use a LONG GUN. Not exactly easy for a girl of five foot nothing, but then I know my comforts, lack of awkwardness in use, proficiency in hitting my target and preference mean exactly nothing in your world if YOU can sleep better right?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
the right for people to possess things which are essentially designed to kill or injure other human beings.
My very first post of the discussion addressed this one, but I see it has popped up again. That actually took longer than I thought though. Guess all those people who enjoy the sport of handgun hunting, where handgun hunting is allowed, have actually been hunting people all this time. Who would have thunk it?

How long till this old lie is used again? 60, 70 posts?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
Do you agree, in general, that we have a right to own property? That this right shall not be infringed without reasonable cause? I suspect you do.

Yes.
Quote:
Reasonable cause is the core of this issue - you (and 'your side') have not demonstrated the reasonable part. There have been enough experiments with bans to show that it doesn't (I would say cannot) work.

I don't have "experiments" to back up my opinions, but that doesn't mean that there is a very good chance that banning handguns would reduce violent crime (and accidents) compared to what would happen if we didn't ban them. Common sense would tell me that there will be less handguns, and therefore less crime, if we banned them. So far no one has been able to give me a logical reason why or how banning handguns will result in more crime, except to give some statistics which I don't think are very meaningful.
I think we all want the same thing here. We all want to see less crime, even if we have different ideas about how to achieve it. I don't want to ban handguns just for the sake of taking away peoples' liberty. So if someone can convince me how keeping handguns legal results in less crime, I just might change my mind.
I am willing to bet that you do not know anyone personally who owns a handgun. I don't either, almost nobody does. For all practical purposes, handguns are already banned. I cannot get one, neither can you; a de facto ban. Random internet statistics say there are only 0.7 million to 1.2 million handguns in the entire country, about one handgun for every 31 people. So reality tells me already that you are wrong. Actual objective reality, not feelings, not deeply held beliefs, not opinions. Assuming an even distribution of handguns, you would need to break into 10 homes to find one handgun. We already know that the distribution is not equal, so the chances of finding a handgun in a break in are probably less than 1 in 100. Unless of course you had a convenient list of all the handgun owners, like say some sort of database....
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact, go out and canvas your neighborhood. See who you find first, a victim of a recent crime (say the last six months), or a registered handgun owner. Keep going, see how long it takes you to find that first handgun owner.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the way into work today, they were talking about some multiple murder suspect who was identified by some people, they called the cops, and 4 days later the cops come by to check it out. Kind of underscores the point that the police will not be there in your hour of need.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 10 of 10

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Handgun Ban Petition

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB